February 12, 1932

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, I' call up House Resolution 133.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina calls up a resolution, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

House Resolution 133

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 14 , proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Uni t ed States fixing the commencement of the terms of President and Vice President and Members of Congress and fixing the time of the assembling o! Congress. ·

That after general debate, which shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally · divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Election of President, Vice Pres i dent, and Representatives in Congress, the Senate joint resolution shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the joint resolution for amendment the committee shall rise and report the same to the House With such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and the amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one mo.tion to recommit.

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, and I think my colleague on the other side will not object, that on page 2, in line 4, after the word "rule," the following amendment be incorporated: "for the purpose of amendment the House committee substitute shall be considered as an original bill."

Mr. MICHENER. That is satisfactory to this side, Mr. Speaker, as far as the committee is concerned.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina offers an amendment to the resolution, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Pou: Page 2, line 4, after the word "rule," insert the words "for · the purpose of amendment the House committee substitute shall be considered as an original bill."

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make inquiry as to the effect of the amendment.

Mr. POU. It simply makes the House committee substitute as the original resolution.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry'.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. LEWIS. Would amendments be admissible under the amendment that would not be admissible were the amendment not adopted?

The SPEAKER. The Chair understands the proposed amendment to the rule gives greater liberality in the offering of amendments in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. Speaker, as I understand, the House committee struck out all of the Senate bill after the enacting clause, and the purpose of the amendment is to throw open the House resolution to amendments under the general rules of the House.

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr . - POU. Mr. Speaker, this special rule from the Committee on Rules provides for the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 14, proposing an amendment .to the Constitution of the United States fixing the time of the assembling of Congress, and so forth.

It is known throughout the country, I believe, as the socalled " lame duck " amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, this is a subject that has been considered by the House and the Senate for a number of years. The rule provides for three hours of general debate, one half to be controlled by the chairman of the committee and one half by the ranking minority member. As this proposed amendment has been discussed so much and as I see no necessity for any further observations as to the rule, which provides for the consideration of the joint resolution, I shall have nothing further to say, and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, may I say that our understanding was that we would not take much time on the rule unless there was great demand for time. General debate under the rule is exceedingly short, being but three hours. I might say to the gentleman that we have a great demand for time on this side. The ranking member of the legislative committee advises me that he has such a demand for time that he has not even been able to take care of all the members of the committee.

Mr. POU. How much time does the gentleman require?

Mr. MICHENER. The usual 30 minutes.

Mr. CELLER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICHENER. Yes. _

Mr. CELLER. I have been trying to get some time on the resolution, and other Members on this side have been trying to do the same thing. While I will no doubt be able to get time, why could it not be arranged that the time used in discussing the rule be added to the time for general debate on the resolution?

Mr. POU. It is not considered entirely proper to discuss the merits of a resolution or bill under the rule itself, but it has been done ever since I have been a Member of this body. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Michigan one-half hour, to be in turn used as he may see fit.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee, in February, 1931, in the Seventy-first Congress, I presented a similar rule, which made the proposed constitutional amendment in order at that time, and expressed my views as to the necessity fm· the amendment. This proposal has passed the Senate six or seven times and was approved by the House by more than a two-thirds vote about a year ago, but died in conference. The Gifford resolution, as it passed the House, was in all material respects the same as the resolution which we are here to consider, with two exceptions: First, the present resolution places no limit on the length of either session of Congress. Second, section 6 of the Gifford resolution is not embodied in the present resolution. That section reads thus:

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of threefourths of the States within seven years from the date of 1 he submission _ hereof to the States by the Congress. and the act o1 ratification shall be by legislatures the entire membership of at least one branch of which shall have been elected subsequent to such date of submission.

We are familiar with the so-called Longworth amendment, which passed in the last session and which limited the short session of Congress to June 4, as I recall. This amendment did not fix by Constitution an unchangeable date for the termination of the second session but did provide that June 4 should end the second session unless the Congress by legislation determined otherwise. The reasons for this change are so fully set forth in the debates in the last session that repetition is unnecessary. I am advised that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WARREN] will offer this amendment when the resolution is being read for amendment, and I bespeak for his amendment the favorable consideration of the House. Previous to the submission of the eighteenth amendment Congress had never placed a limitation upon the time in which the legislatures of the · several States might ratify an amendment. As a result several amendments to the Constitution have been passed by Congress on which no action has ever been taken by the required number of States, yet these amendments are in existence, have vitality, and would become a part of the fundamental law of the land if a sufficient number of the States should proceed to ratify - them. Indeed, some of these amendments are almost as old as the Constitution itselffor instance, amendments proposed in 1789, 1810, 1861, and 1924 have not been ratified by the States, and there are possibly others which I do not now recall. The Supreme Court of the United- States has held that the Congress has the power to place a reasonable limitation upon the time in which the States have to ratify an amendment, and seven years has been held a reasonable time. It seems to me that no possible objection can be had to a provision of this kind. Section 6. above referred to, contains a new feature in that it provides that at least one body of the State legislature must be elected by the people after the submission of the constitutional amendment and before its consideration by the State legislature. I favor submitting this constitutional amendment, and I shall vote for the amendment, and I make these few suggestions merely for the purpose of perfecting the · proposal.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICHENER. Yes. . .

Mr. LAGUARDIA. What constitutional justification has the gentleman for the second provision in his amendment, namely, that one body of the legislature be elected after the submission of the amendment?

Mr. MICHENER. The gentleman has no ruling on the constitutional authority, because the matter has never been submitted, but he has just the same justification that those who submitted the seven years' provision in the first place had. That very question was argued very thoroughly in the Congress-in the House and in the Senate-and it was argued that the Constitution provided the way and that the Congress could not, by legislation, change that way. The Supreme Court has sustained the 7-year proposition, and I feel just as confident that the Supreme Court, for the same reasons, would sustain this proposition.

I hope these two amendments will be accepted, and when accepted, that the resolution will pass. However, in order that I may not be misunderstood, I repeat that I favor the resolution. Personally I shall vote for the resolution without the amendments, but it is much better, in my judgment, with the amendments. .

Mr. CELLER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICHENER. For a short question; yes.

Mr. CELLER. Do I understand the gentleman to say that the Supreme Court might decide that the legislatures of the various States would have to ratify within seven years even if there were no such express provision in the resolution?

Mr. MICHENER. No; what the gentleman said was that the Supreme Court has decided that Congress may provide a time in which the States must act and that seven years is a reasonable time, and it is the judgment of the gentleman speaking that the Supreme Court would also ratify the provision that at least one body of the State legislature must be elected by the people before the ratification is effective by the State legislature.

Mr. CELLER. Suppose we adopt this resolution which, I understand, carries no limitation as to seven years or any other time, would the Supreme Court, in passing upon this provision at some subsequent time, permit the ratification if it took 20 years, for instance?

· Mr. MICHENER. If the gentleman had been listening to the earlier part of my remarks he would realize I stated that there were to-day amendments floating about the country which were submitted 100 years ago, which might, voted. theoretically, become a part of the Constitution to-day if certain States which had not acted should act upon the amendments now; and we want to avoid anything of that quired. kind.

I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. STAFFORD].

Mr. ST~.o\FFORD. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Committee on Rules in affording at so early a date in the session of the Congress an opportunity to the House to vote on this resolution. On six or seven different occasions the Senate of the United States has passed this resolution, forwarded it to the House, and it was either buried in committee or, as in the last Congress, left dangling as a waif in the committee room or somewhere else for more than a year after it had passed the Senate. It was brought up . for consideration in the House late in the closing days of the Congress, an amendment was added, . which was a rather material amendment, the resolution as amended passed, but the lateness of the session did not give time for the Senate to pass upon the question carried in the amendment.

. Whether the resolution is passed in toto as it has been presented by the committee or is amended in the particulars suggested by the gentleman from Michigan, nevertheless we can expect that some definitive action will be taken this session upon this resolution, which has been so greatly demanded by the American people.

I do not join with the distinguished gentleman from Mich i gan in the fear that this proposed amendment will join the 100 amendments that have been proposed since the organization of the Government t hat have never been ratified by the legislatures of a sufficient number of the States and are now dangling .in the limbo of the past for the very rea s on that this is a live amendment about which the people of the c o untry are much concerned and which the legislatures are waiting for an opportunity to ratify.

In no government on the face of the earth do we find the condition where a legislative body, after it has been discredited by the people, is granted the opportunity to continue to legislate. I shall not enter into an academic discussion as to how it came about that we had a hold-over session to pass legislation after the election, but the fact is that prior to 1821 there were 18 distinct legislative proposals of various Congresses providing a different a s sembling date than the first Monday of December, and 10 of these 18 were for the first Monday in November.

The resolution that we have here before us contains nothing that makes it mandatory that Congress shall assemble on the 4th day of January of each year in evennumbered and odd-numbered years. It leaves it to the Congress to fix some different date, and I am hopeful that when this amendment is ratified by the legislatures of · a sufficient number of the States that instead of our convening in the even-numbered years on the 4th day of January we will convene on the first Monday of November prior thereto, so as to make the long session meet on the first Monday of November in the odd-numbered year prior to the congressional or presidential election, and run along prior to the assembling of the national conventions.

I think the proposal of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MicHENER] that was voted on so very positively in the last Congress and which will be submitted here for a vote to-day, prescribing . some day in June, perhaps, when the Congress should mandatorily come to an end, should be adopted; that is, in the year when we have our presidential elections or our congressional elections and conventions.

Even the adoption of this amendment would not prevent the Congress, or even that Congress, from deciding on a different date of that same year if the exigency of the case would require it; but it would prevent perhaps some obstrep- erous Members who bask in the sunlight of publicity and whose homes are here more than in their respective States holding up the Congress when the membership of the House overwhelmingly would like to get back to their districts so as to look after their own election and give an accounting to the electorate of what they had done and how they had Neither is the power vested in the President contravened from summoning the Congress in emergent session if reSection 3 of the proposed resolution takes care of the hiatus that has happened only once in 140 years, where there was not a majority of the electoral votes for any one candidate for the Presidency. That was in 1825. The four respective candidates for President-William H. Crawford, of Georgia; Henry Clay, of Kentucky; Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee; and John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts--each lacked having a majority of the electors. _

John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay between them did not have a majority vote, but Andrew Jackson and William H. Crawford between them had a majority, and yet the House, under the method prescribed by Article XII of the amendments, voted to elect John Quincy Adams.

This provision takes care of the hiatus in case the President elect should die after he is elected, or in case there should be no Vice President to take tl;le office, as it gives Congress the right to pass legislation as to who, under the circumstances, would succeed to the office.

The resolution has been carefully considered by the committees of the House and the Senate. In this we are but echoing the advance thought of the world and of the country to discontinue, to put a stop for all time to these lameduck sessions of Congress, after the people have voted out certain Members and, perhaps, have turned the control over to the opposition party.

I well remember-and the older Members will rememberthat fateful day, March 4, 1911, when the Republicans, after having been in control of all branches of the Government for 16 years and were then losing control of the House, with Speaker Cannon in the chair, at the hour of 11.15, tried to put through the House under - whip and spur the Tariff Commission act. The Democrats were solidly arrayed against that outrageous legislative coup. Feeling ran high. The House was in wild disorder. One Democratic Member stood here in the well with a knife in his hand, threatening the Speaker if he would recognize · Members to pass the resolution.

The Democrats were right-the Republicans had been discredited. By what constitutional right could a legislative body, after it had been renounced by the electorate, assume to legislate, especially on a partisan matter? Why should any Congress, in a hold -over session; be permitted · to pass appropriation bills or any kind of legislation in the few months of the hold-over session, especially where the membership has changed? This archaic system is a legislative anachronism that has been tolerated but not justified. The fundamental principle of legislative accountability to the electorate is violated. The renounced Members have had loosened the ties of responsibility in their votes.

I do not claim that all defeated Representatives are chary of their high responsibility, but oftentimes, I regret to say, - many have been.

So I urge the removal of this legislative abnormality so that trust in our · Congress will not be impaired, or even questioned, by any part of the electorate.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, how much time have I used?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has used four minutes.

Mr. POU. I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GREENWOOD].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, we have before us for consideration a constitutional amendment, and I shall speak to the merits of the amendment rather than the rule, which I understand has been customary.

This is an amendment that has been up several times for our consideration, and of which I have confidence in its merits and believe in its great importance to the machinery of our Federal Government.

The adoption of this amendment is not fundamental, in that it goes to any traditional principles of our Government. It is not a change in the fundamental - principle or the theory of our Government, but goes merely to the mechanics of procedure in Congress.

The present method was formulated 140 years ago, when we were without railroads, _ without telegraph lines, without airplanes, or any of the present methods of transportation or communication. No doubt it was considered adequate for that day in which our forefathers lived when they formulated the Constitution, but we are living in a different age. We are living in an age of speed. We are . living in an age when we attempt to do things in a more efficient manner, when time is of great importance. It. seems to me that it is a great travesty to have a Congress elected in November that _ shall enter on the pay roll on the 4th of the following March and not be called to their official duties - until 13 months after they are elected. I submit it is impractical and that it is unscientific; that it is not calculated to produce the best methods of government or of legislation. So it is to eliminate that session of the old Congress after the election has been held, the commonly called "lame-duck" session, that this amendment is proposed.

Our Republic has always been heralded as a government that is representative in its character. The only part that the people play in the machinery of government is at the ballot box. It is there that they hold check and balance upon the administration and upon the legislative program and the official activities of their officers. If that is a fundamental principle, as we all concede, then a mandate that is issued in the early part of November should be carried into effect as soon as possible after the election has been held. The old method under which we are now operating nullifies that principle of government that the people speak authoritatively at the ballot box. It allows men, after they have been repudiated at the polls, to come back and for a period of three months legislate for the people. Not only that, although it has rarely been the circumstance, nevertheless, a President might have to be elected by the House of Representatives, as has been necessary in times past. Shall we say it meets our ideas of democracy that a Congress that has been repudiated at the polls in November shall meet here the following year, and if a President has not been elected in that · election, that that old Congress which met defeat at the polls shall be called into · session to elect a President of the United States? I think it is impractical, that it is unscientific, and that it is undemocratic, and I think in this modern day it might be considered as unAmerican. No Congress, commissioned in November, should be compelled to remain at home for 13 months before it assumes its official duties.

I want to make this House of Representatives responsible to the people of the United States who comm i ssion it. There is one amendment that has been offered to this resolution in times past that probably will be offered again, and that is that the second session of the Congress shall be limited by the Constitution. I think we have noticed in our experience of times past that the short session of Congress is very often filled with confusion. It is that barrier of the 4th day of March that stands there, fixed by law as the time when Congress must . adjourn, that offers that opportunity for some person who is overenthusiastic for some personal measure to assume the responsibility of thwarting the legislative will of Congress by means of filibuster. I do not believe the machinery of government should be such as to allow a stubborn minority of one Member to defeat the will of the majority. It is contrary to my ideas of representative government, controlled by the majority, that there should be any opportunity offered, under the machinery of the management of this House or of Congress, that will permit one man's will to defeat' the will of the majority.

The short sessions of Congress very often end in confusion, and we go back to our constituency in humiliation that matters of supreme importance in legislation, and even appropriation bills, have been defeated by the will of one man or a small minority, because that barrier was fixed at which adjournment should be had, absolutely.

Our Government has grown to the place where the transaction of one year's business is just as important as another. I never could . see the practical side; I never could see the advantage of having a long session of Congress followed by a short session. Appropria t ions must be more or less uniformly made, and the activities of all departments are practically the same one with another. The duties of Congress are the same one year with another. I can not see why one session of Congress should go on until a joint resolution of both Houses to adjourn has been agreed to, while the short session is absolutely closed by limitation of law.

This is campaign year. We are gathered in the long session of Congress. We have certain business to transact and certain tasks to perform; but who will say that when that task is finished both . Houses will not be willing to adjourn and that we will adjourn as we always have, in plenty of time to transact the business, politically speaking, that shall confront us in the campaign?

It has been said that self-preservation is the first law of nature. That is true in politics as it is true in nature. Each Congress may be trusted to finish its business. Congress . should proceed each year until its task is finished, and it should not have a barrier standing there, fixed by law, as the goal toward which some one who desires to filibuster and thwart the will of the majority shall use as an instrumentality for his own individual desires.

I say it is impractical to have a short session and a long session of Congress when the business of the country is uniform from year to year. Furthermore, I am not one who is willing to believe that there should be written into the Constitution of the United States a provision that is based upon political expediency. When we place a limitation on the second session of Congress, on the theory that it is campaign year, we are writing the Constitution of the United States on that theory of political expediency instead of the welfare of the country. Let us attend to business first - and politics will take care of itself.

Mr. MICHENER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield.

Mr. MICHENER. I do not want to be ' understood as stating that I was proposing this amendment because it was campaign year, I want it understood that there must be a limitation at some time, even though it be the end of the year, and that so far as filibustering is concerned, that is just as effective at the end of a long session as it is at the end of a short session.

1\IIr. GREENWOOD. My remarks were not directed at anything the gentleman from Michigan said.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman one additional minute. ·

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have just this further observation to make, that we can trust both branches of the Congress to close the session - in the second year just the same as they are now called upon to close it in the first year. The business of the country is uniform, so that it is as important to have a long session in the second year as in the first year. It is important that the Congress should take care of all its tasks before closing a session rather than to have the closing date fixed by law, so that it will be absolute. If the session in the second year is not arbitrarily closed by law, then the Congress can finish all the tasks they have to perform.

Let us place no limitation in the Constitution, but leave that to the discretion of each Congress to adjourn when the legislative program is finished.

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WARREN].

Mr. 'WARREN. Mr. Speaker, as much as I would like to have the opportunity to do so, I feel physically unable to-day to discuss this resolution. I have well-settled convictions on this subject, and have expressed them on every occasion that this resolution has been under consideration. I think we have made a mountain out of a molehill on the whole matter. I realize the force of the argument that a defeated or a discred i ted Congress should not be permitted to function, and I am in sympathy with that part of the resolution, although I think we can accomplish by statute all we are now seeking to accomplish by an amendment of the Constitution . . I do feel, however, very keenly against a wideopen and a perpetual session of Congress. Those of us who were here in the last session will remember that the late distinguished Speaker of this House left the chair for the second time during his incumbency, took the floor, and offered an amendment to place a limitation of four months on the second session of Congress. I merely rise at this time to give notice that at the proper time I shall offer that same amendment, which was largely supported on both sides of the House, and which was adopted by 81 majority last February. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that I may extend my remarks by inserting in the RECORD the roll call last February on the so-called Longworth amendment.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

The roll call referred to follows:

[Roll No. 37]

Yeas-229: Adkins, Aldrich, Andresen, Andrew, Arentz, Aswell, I Auf der Heide, Bacharach, Bacon, Baird, Bankhead, Beck, Beedy, Beers, Blackburn, Bland, Blanton, Bloom, Bohn, Bolton, Bowman, Boylan, Brand of Georgia, Brand of Ohio, Brigham, Britten, Browning, Burdick, Busby , Butler, Cable, Campbell of Iowa, Campbell of Pennsylvania, Canfield, Carley, Carter of California, Carter of Wyoming, Cartwright, Chalmers, Chindblom, Chiperfield, Christopherson, Clancy, Clark of North Carolina, Clarke of New York, Cochran of Pennsylvania, Cole, Collier, Colton, Connolly, Cooper of Ohio, Corning, Cox, Coyle, Cramton, Cross, Crowther, Culkin, Cullen, Dallinger, Darrow, Davenport, Davis, De Priest, Dickinson, Di c kstein, Dorsey, Douglas of Arizona, Doutrich, Drewry, Eaton of Colorado, Eaton of New Jersey, Elliott, Ellis, Englebright, Estep, E v ans of California, F i nley, Fish, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Fort, Foss, Free, Freeman, French, Fuller, Fulmer, Ga s que , Gibson, Gifford, Glover, Goodwin, Goss, Green, Guyer, Hadley, Hale, Hall of Illinois, Hall of Indiana, Halsey, Hancock of New York, Hardy, Hartley, Hastings, Haugen, Hess, Hoch, Hogg of Ind i ana, Hogg of West Virginia, Holaday, Hooper, Hope, Hopkins, H u d s on, William E. Hull, Irwin, James of North Carolina, Jenkins, Johnson of Illinois, Johnson of Nebraska, Johnson of Washington, Jonas of North Carolina, Kading, Kendall of Kentucky, , Kerr, Ketcham, Knutson, Kopp, Korell, Lambertson, Langley, Lanham. Lankford of Virginia, Leavitt, Leach, Lehlbach, Letts, Lindsay, Linthicum, Loo f bourow, Luce, McClintock of Ohio, McCormick of illinois, McDuffie, McKeown, McLeod, Manlove, Mansfield, Martin, Mead, Iy.renges, Michener, lJJ:ooney, Morgan, Mouser, Murphy, Nelson of Maine, Niedringhaus, Norton, O'Connor of Oklahoma, Oliver of New York, Owen, Palmisano, Parks, Perkins, Pittenger, Pou, Harcourt J. Pratt, Ruth Pratt, Purnell, Ragon, Frank M. Ramey, Ransley, Reece, Reed of New York, Rich, Rogers, Sanders of New York, Sanders of Texas, Schafer of Wisconsin, Sears, Seger, Seiberling, Shaffer of Virginia, Short of Missouri, Simms, Sloan, Smith of Idaho, Smith of West Virginia, Snell, Sparks, Sproul of Kansas, Stalker, Stobbs, Strong of Pennsylvania, Sullivan of New York, Sullivan of Pennsylvania, Summers of Washington, Swick, Taber, Tarver, Taylor of Tennessee, Thatcher, Thurston, Tilson, Timberlake, Tinkham, Treadway, Turpin, Underhill, Vestal, Vincent of Michigan, Wainwright, Walker, Warren, Wason, Watres, Welch of California, Welsh of Pennsylvania, White, Whitley, Wigglesworth, Williamson, Wolverton of New Jersey, Wolverton of West Virginia, Wood, Woodrum, Wright.

Nays-148: Abernethy, Ackerman, Allen, Almon, Arnold, Ayres, Barbour, Black, Box, Briggs, Browne, Brumm, Brunner, Buchanan, Burtness, Byrns, Cannon, Celler, Christgau, Clague, Cochran of Missouri, Collins, Condon, Connery, Cooke, Cooper of Tennessee, Cooper of Wisconsin, Craddock, Crail, Crisp, Crosser, Dempsey, DeRouen, Dominick, Doughton, Dowell, Doxey, Driver, Dunbar, Edwards, Eslick, Esterly, Evans of Montana, Fisher, Frear, Gambrill, Garber of Oklahoma, Garner, Gavagan, Goldsborough, Granfield, Greenwood, Gregory, Griffin, Hall of North Dakota, Hancock of North Carolina, Hare, Hickey. Hill of Alabama, :am of Washington, Houston of Delaware, Howard, Huddleston, Morton D. Hull, Hull of Tennessee, Hull of Wisconsin, James of Michigan, Jeffers, Johnson of Oklahoma, Johnson of Texas, Jones of Texas, Kearns, Kelly, Kinzer, Kurtz, Kvale, LaGuardia, Lankford of Georgia, Lozier, Lud l ow, McCormack of Massachusetts, McFadden, McLaughlin, Me- ..... Millan, McReynolds, McSwain, Maas, Magrady, Mapes, Merritt, Miller , Milligan, Montague, Montet, Moore of Kentucky, Moore of Ohio, Moore of Virginia, Morehead, Nelson of Missouri, Nelson of Wisconsin, Nolan, O'Connor of New York, Oldfield, Oliver of Alabama, Palmer, Parker, Parsons, Patman, Patterson, Peavey, Prall, Quin, Henry T. Rainey, Ramseyer, Ramspeck, Rankin, Rayburn, Reilly, Robinson, Romjue, Rutherford, Sandlin, Schneider, Selvig, Shott of West Virginia, Simmons, Sinclair, Snow, Somers of New York, Speaks, Stafford, St e agall, Stone, Sumners of Texas, Swanson, Swing, Taylor of Colorado, Temple, Tucker, Underwood, Vinson of Georgia, Whittington, Wilson, Wingo, Wolfenden , Woodruff, Wyant, Yon, Zihlman.

Not voting-53: Allgood, Bachmann, Bell, Buckbee, Chase, Clark of Maryland, Denison, Douglass of Massachusetts, Doyle, Drane, Dyer, Erk, Fenn, Garber of Virginia, Garrett, Golder, Graham, Hall of Mississippi, Hawley, Hoffman, Hudspeth, Igoe, Johnson of Ind i ana, Johnson of South Dakota, Johnston of Missouri, Kahn, Kemp, Kendall of Pennsylvania, Kennedy, Kiefner, Kunz, Larsen, Lea, McClintic of Oklahoma, Michaelson, Newhall, O'Connor of Louisiana, Pritchard, Reid of Illinois, Rowbottom, Sabath, Shreve, Sirovich, Spearing, Sproul of illinois, Stevenson, Strong of Kansas, Thompson, Watson, Whitehead, Williams, Wurzbach, and Yates. So the amendment wa.s agreed to.

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

Until further notice:

Mr. Graham with Mr. Stev-enson. Mr. Buckbee with Mr. Hall of Mississippi. Mr. Dyer with Mr. Allgood. Mr. Hawley with Mr. Larsen. Mr. Golder with Mr . Williams. ~_r. Reid of Illinois with Mr. Igoe. Mr. Shreve with Mr. Drane. Mr. Erk with Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bachmann with :Mr. McClintic of Oklahoma. :Mr. Johnson of South Dakota with Mr. Bell. Mr. Watson with Mr. Douglass of Massachusetts . Mr. Chase with Mr. Kemp. Mr. Denison with Mr. Garrett. l\!Ir. Kendall of Pennsylvania with Mr. Kunz. Mr. Wurzbach with Mr. O'Connor of Louisiana. Mr. Sproul of Illinois with Mr. Sabath. Mr. Pritchard with Mr. Whitehead. Mr. Kiefner with Mr. Lea. :J\.!r. Garber of Virginia with Mr. Sirovich. l\!Ir. Fenn with Mr. Hudspeth.

Mrs. Kahn with Mr. Doyle.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter, and I doubt if there is a quorum present.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Speaker, I was going to join with the gentleman from Connecticut by saying it is such an insignificant matter that I think a quorum should be present.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman make the point of order that there is no quorum present?

Mr. GOSS. M r . Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GIFFORD].

Mr . . GIFFORD. n..rr. Speaker, I think the House knows that for some time I acted as chairman of this committee and am now the ranking member on the minor i ty side.

When, some eight years ago, this matter was brought to my attention I was not particularly interested in having more · amendments added to the Constitution. The " lameduCk" amendment, so called, standing by itself, did not greatly appeal to me, but when our much respected Clerk, Tyler Page, who has been here for 50 years, told · us that there were 12 unanswerable questions which it was the plain duty of our committee to look into, I became convinced that there was a very great necessity for an amendment to the Co!lsti tution.

The lame-duck amendment is of very little importance compared to section 3 and section 4. Just because something has not happened in 140 years is no reason why it may not happen. And that danger was foreseen 100 years.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that there is no quorum present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently there · is not a quorum present.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I move a call ()f the · House.

A call of the House was ordered.

The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members f-ailed to answer to their names:

[Roll No. 18]

Abernethy Davenport James Oliver, N.Y. Aldrich De Priest Jenkins Pettengill Ayres Dickstein Johnson, TIL Purnell Bachmann Dieterich Johnson, S. Dak. Rankin Bacon Douglass, Mass. Johnson, Wash. Ransley Baldridge Doutrich Kahn Reid, lll. Beck Dyer Kelly, lll. Rogers, Mass. Beers Eaton, Colo. Kelly, Pa. .Sa.bath Bloom Eaton, N. J. Kemp Schneider Boland Erk · Kendall Seger Bowman Estep Kennedy Selvig Bra.nd, Ohio Evans, Mont. Ketcham Sirovich Briggs Fish Kinzer Smith, Va. Britten Fishburne Knutson Smith, W.Va. Brunner Freeman Kurtz Snell Burch Gambrill Lankford, Va. Stalker Burdick Garrett Lea Strong, Kans. Carden Gasque Lovette .Sulliva.n, Pa. Carter, Wyo. Golder Ludlow Sweeney Cha.,pman Gxanata McClintock, Ohio Taber Chase Granfield McDuffie Treadway Chiperfield Grifiln McGugin 1 Tucker Cbchran, Pa. Guyer McLaughlin Underhill Colller .Hall, }.fiss. McM.lllan Underwood Colton Hancock, N.Y. Maloney Welsh, Pa. Connery Hancock, N.-c. Manlove White Connolly Hartley Montet Wigglesworth Cooke Ifuwley Moore,Ohio Wolfenden Coyle Hopkins Nelson, Wis. Wood, Ga. Crosser. Houston Niedringh.aus Wood, Ind. Crowe Igoe Norton, N.J.

The SPEAKER. Three hundred and eight Members have answered to their names; a quorum is present.

On motion of Mr. Pou, further proceedings under the call . were dispensed with. -

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ha-ve it understood by the membership of the House that I was not responsible for the roll call, but rather requested that should . not be made.

When my remarks were interrupted I was explaining that the first part of this resolution, the so-called " lame-duck section, did not appeal to me as being important enough for a constitutional amendment to be presented to the country. But I felt otherwise when it was shown us how important the other matters are which are now incorporated 10 . sec t· 1008 3 and 4, and have to deal with the event the President elect, or the Vice President elect, or both die before their respective successors are named.

However, I do favor the "lame-duck" provision in the proposed amendment. Looking into the matter from my own standpoint, I would prefer not to come back here and legislate after having been defeated, because I suppose I would have to continue in my former frame of mind and sometimes vote directly against the exact wishes of my constituents as -expressed in the election of my opponent. -su I am now in favor of that proposition.

n is perfectly clear that nearly all the -difference of opinion now comes on the limitation 'Of the second session, having in mind elections held in those years and the national eonvention · every four years. For . one, I heartily agree that there should be .a limitation on the second session.

M be l ·tt, 1 A~ff t f th d

Y reasons may a • .~.e.-u:L different from those a vane by some others, but I .have m mmd that there 1S another body tn the Congress. That body has vastly altered in the last many years, until to-day we have to reckon with that change, and 1 do not want the time ever to come when we can not extricate ourselves from the interminable delays originating in that body. And if the so-called Longworth amendment should fail, I shall offer an amendment that it seems to me should be satisfactory,

In the debates of last year the argument was made that we should not surrender our rights to the Executive, that we should not be called in to extra session merely at the whim of the Executive, but that we should hold to our -own rights; and my proposed amendment provides that although we shall agree to terminate · the second session on May 4 there would be the added words " unless the Congress appoint a different day:" Hence if May 1 comes and we find we can not get through on May 4 by joint action of the Congress we can .continue, without any consideration of what the President may desire. But the action should be joint. It should not be left to the whim of either branch to prolong sessions indefinitely.

I do not wish to be unparliamentary, but I think that a very serious condition becomes apparent when we compare the two bodies. We of the House seem not to trust ourselves. We tie ourselves up with all sorts of rules. We scarcely have time for reasonable debate. Even five minutes is very .often hard to obtain. . In the other branch, however, there are no such limiting rules. The Senate might actually keep us in continuous session. There have been occasions when for weeks we have had to stay here and recess three -days at a time waiting for them to exhaust themselves in endless debate.

The third and fourth -articles are, I feel, extremely important. If there should be no President -of the United States having qualified -on the 4th day of March, it would be a most serious matter.

Because of the Jefferson-Burr controversy, as you remember, it became necessary to pass the twelfth amendment, and I wish to read a little from the argument presented on the floor uf the Senate in order to show to this House the high character of the debate of those days. No wonder Governor MoNTAGUE, the gentleman from Virginia, and others have often spoken in the House .and reminded us of the debates of om fathers. I read for days the debates of 1803 on the twelfth am · amendment, and the high character of those debates seems far ahead, I am sorry to say, of what is carried on to-day.

If there had been no President of the United. States electedHear this from the :Senators of the old days of 1803- it there would have been every reason to-- believe that -gloomy, indeed, w.ould have been the prospect. A long train of evils, incalculable in their consequences, could hardly have failed to overspread the face of this · delightful country. Indeed, sir, what would have been the ultimate issue it is not within the compass of human foresight to divine. This great, this flourishing -country, which at this time pours forth i.n.numerable streams of prosperity , displaying in vast and rich variety every means of individual happiness, every means of national happiness, and every means of true national glory, instead of exhibiting the present pleasing, animating prospect, before this period might have been enveloped in dark and dismal clouds of confusion, disorder, -and political distraction. The bands of society being thus in a manner broken asunder .and all the angry, turbulent passions incident to man left unrestrained, what fatal consequences might be expected to follow! What violence of party, what rage of ambition, what dreadful commotions, might be expected to agitate this then unfortunate country! And, sir, is there a single American living whose blood is so far chilled with indifference - concerning the fate of this country, that he would not be stricken with awful alarm at the prospect of such an event-an event tending directly to produce so complete a state of anarchy with all its concomitant calamities?

I think it is perfectly parliamentary to read the speech of Mr. OLIVER -of New York, ma-de last year, during which he said on page 5981 of the REcORD:

Mr. Chairman, ladies .and gentlemen of the committee, I remember that when the House and the Senate were first formed, they said the House . of Representatives was like a cup into which the ed coffee was -poured hot and -that the Senate was like the saucer in which it cooled off. Now time has changed that and the saucer has become Tabasco sauce, <iynamite, gasoline, and the only cool body left is the cup of the House of Representatives. [Laughter.]

I have shown you the character of senatorial debate in former days. Now, with what humility must we read the Senate debate of yesterday, or the day before, when the Senator from Nebraska made use of this language, as appears in the RECORD: -

A bright newspaper man last night over the radio told us that Mr. Dawes had left his knee breeches over in London and that Andy was going to wear them when he got over there. Think what a spectacle he would present standing on his diminutive pipestems in Dawes's breeches in the presence of aristocracy in the greatest diplomatic center on earth! [Laughter.] ·

A great man once said that anyone who could make two blades of grass grow where only one grew before was a benefactor of the human race. My judgment is that Andy will not wear Dawes's breeches , but, following in the pathway of the man who made two blades of grass grow where one grew before, he will take a pair of his trousers and cut them in two slightly above the knee and thus have two pairs of trousers where only one existed before.

Mr. HOWARD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GIFFORD. I yield.

· Mr. HOWARD. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts think it is wicked on the part of the Senator from Nebraska to quote the words of a former Vice President, and now the practical President? [Laughter.]

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman from Nebraska that I am talking about the present-day speeches on the · floor of the other body.

Mr. HOWARD. And I am for them. [Laughter.]

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely sorry to hear such an acknowledgment from my dear friend, the gentleman from Nebraska. I had hoped that the House does not feel that way about it.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the point of difference is on the limitation. I am willing that by joint action of the House and the Senate Congress may sit longer in session. That is fair, and that removes all the objections which were made last year, to the effect that we should be ruled by the whim of the President as to whether we had a special session or not.

Mr. Speaker, when the resolution originally came over from the Senate I thought that it was a lame-duck proposition with which they were chiefly concerned, but after the several days in conference J was made to realize, to my amazement, that the principal thing in their minds was to do away with the short session of Congress. The lame-duck provision seemed a very secondary matter.

In the committee of conference of last year the House conferees proposed that the limitation of the session should be made on June 4. Was that agreeable? No. The suggestion was then made that it should be July 4. But no; there was not a spark of the spirit of compromise, even though we had voted in this House by 229 to 148 in favor of the limitation after long and full debate, whereas there had been little, if any, debate on limitation in the Senate.

The Senator from Arizona, Mr. AsHURST, about 10 years ago presented this matter in the most extended discussion . that has been held in that other body. Much credit belongs to the Senator from Arizona in bringing this matter to the attention of the Congress at that time.

When the Senate resolution came before our committee, our good friend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. LoziER], a member thereof, gave the matter much study, as did several others. The author of the resolution was requested to appear before us and was informed that the Senate resolu· tion would have to be greatly changed and would require careful consideration. To-day we see that everything has been stricken out after the enacting clause and a new resolution has been written.

For eight long years the committee has given careful consideration to this. We now have a resolution favored by the American Bar Association, which has given the subject exceedingly careful consideration and has for many years been in favor of the proposed changes. Our late Speaker Longworth told you last year that the American Bar Association favored this limitation of May 4.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee I will vote for the resolution whether these amendments are cartied or not, but I reserve the right to support as strongly as I can the principle of a limitation by which we can ourselves have equal rights with the Senate regarding the date of adjournment. [Applause.]

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from New York EMr. O'CoNNOR]. [Applause.]

Mr. O'CONNOR. WJI. Speaker, in this Seventy-second Congress of the United States there are many great problems confronting us. Such questions have never before been presented to our country in all its history. During the past 160 years of our liberty we have divided politically on only two questions. Men have been elected Pre s ident, party platforms have been framed with the chief difference between the major political parties, first, slavery, and later, the tariff. To-day, however, we are faced with an economic situation in this Nation and likewise throughout the world which requires the greatest leadership, which requires men of the greatest insight into economic, financial, and reconstructive policies.

Here we are to-day, I remind you, spending two precious days of this first session of the Seventy-second Congress, considering what, to my mind, is a most insignificant piece of legislation. [Applause.]

Why, the Congress of the United States, with 8,000,000 of our citizens unemployed and hungry, should devote two whole days-and maybe more--of its time to considering this particular constitutional amendment is beyond my conception. If I have any capacity to hear the voice of our people, I know they are unalterably opposed to any constitutional amendment, meritorious or not, except an amendment to repeal the despicable eighteenth amendment.

While I can not subscribe entirely to the remarks made yesterday as to leadership in this House, I do want to say to the country the primary purpose of our Democratic majority should be to solve the present unparalleled economic situation which confronts our Nation to-day. [Applause.] We should not waste our valuable time with a measure such as this-conceived by crackaloos, propagated by crackpots, and supported, by thoughtless demagogues.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The gentleman is out of order in making reference to the author of this resolution in the other body.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will proceed in order.

Mr. O'CO!'-.i'NOR. My colleague from Harlem diverted me. :Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the gentleman is again out of order, and I ask that his words be taken down.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will proceed in order.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Speaker, why does the public sometimes laugh at us here? Why, I have heard it said that a half million dollars has been spent in this Congress in an attempt to change the name of a mountain out in the State of Washington from Rainier to Tacoma. The propaganda beseeched us not to continue the name of a great English explorer as the patron of such a lofty peak, but that our patriotism should impel us to change the name to that of an illustrious Indian polygamist, Chief Tacoma. I further am informed that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in propagating the idea of having 13 months jn the year. Our CONGRESSIONAL RECORD is filled with charts and diagrams worrying over the Wandering Sabbath." I do not know whether the idea is Chinese or Harlem. [Laughter.] ·what I mean to call to your attention is that the country laughs at us for wasting the time of the Congress of the United States on such insignificant matters. Why, the gentleman from Cape Cod [Mr. GIFFORDJ-and those words can be taken down, too--should weep copious tears over the importance of this resolution I leave to your own sense uf humor. What I can not understand is why two precious days-48 hours-of this Congress should be devoted to such an insignificant, unimportant proposition such as this. Will anybody here tell me what difference it makes whether we meet on March 4 or January 24? We are in session right now. Let us devote our present time to doing some t hing for the benefit of our country. Have we ' done it yet?

Why, we have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, everything from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. I hear a great number of Members saying," Right." Of course I am right. Everybody here knows what I am saying is right. To-day we should be bringing up on our own Democratic initiativerathei' than waiting for another body or the Executive to hand us a bill-many of the proposals to remedy our economic situation, such, for instance, as the Costigan-La Follette bill to provide $375,000,000, or what not, to relieve unemployment. We should be doing that and many other things. Now, let us get down to just that work.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, I yield one additional minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. O'CONNOR. The only possibility by which this resolution-and it is not entitled to the dignity of that name; at least, the capital should be omitted-should pass the House is with the so-called Longworth amendment. [Applause.]

"How long, 0 Lord, how long" must we wait for the leadership of this House to assert itself?

Is this all we are here for, to determine when we shall meet and when we shall adjourn? The country wants us to do something. In good times business wants us to adjourn. In bad times they lay all their troubles on our doorstep. We have not done all we should do yet. Let us do it now and stop this " monkey business,” if I may call it that, about when we shall meet and when we shall adjourn. [Applause.]

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, I Yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLERJ.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, I understand we have some time remaining on this side.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has consumed all of his time. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MicHENER] spoke for 5 minutes, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. STAFFORD] for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GIFFORD] for 15 minutes, which makes a total of 30 minutes.

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan have five additional minutes on his side.

Mr. CELLER. Reserving the right to object, I will not object if I am not taken from the floor.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will not be taken from the floor.

Is there objection t the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? · There was no objection.

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLERJ the remaining time I have.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I regret the unseemly language of my colleague the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CoNNOR I with reference to this bill. It is not insignificant. It is one of the most important pieces of lEgislation we will have to deal with in this session, or any other session, regardless of the importance of the problem of unemployment, which in due course will also be solved in this Chamber as well as in the other Chamber.

I remind my colleague from New York that he used language, to my mind, which was rather shocking, concerning a venerable and distinguished Member of the other Chamber. whom I again remind . the gentleman had the courage and the stamina in the face of vilification and persecution from some certain benighted Republicans to support that sterling Democrat, Alfred E. Smith, for the Presidency. [Applause.} I admire a man who, though a Republican, is willing to come forward and recognize the splendid qualifications exemplified in the personage of Alfred E . Smith, a great Democrat. [Applause.] Therefore we should not permit use of remarks of that character concerning him.

Now, gentlemen, this is the lame-duck resolution. What is a lame duck? A lame duck is a wild bird that has been hit with a bullet by a hunter and is brought down. It is not killed, merely lamed and wounded. It is usually tractable, docile, and is easily tamed. So it is with lame ducks in this House and probably in the other House. They have been hit with the shot of defeat by their constituents, and they become very lame, docile, and tractable, and when they have jobs dangled before them they do the bidding of the Executive or those who may be in power.

Now~ it seems to me inconceivable that for these many years lame ducks defeated by their constituents have been able to come back to this House and vote on any proposi .. tion, be it appropriations or what not. It is inconceivable that we should allow something as illogical as that to ad .. here as a barnacle to our Constitution, and give these lame Members, repudiated at the polls, the right, for example, to vote for a President or a Vice President, as was the case on three distinct occasions in this Chamber. It is as ridiculous, if not as barbarous, as the old Chinese custom of binding up the feet of their children. We should do away with it. No country on the face of God's footstool allows 13 months to elapse between the time of an election and the proroguing of their parliaments. It may startle and surprise you to know that nowhere else do we have that great so-called cooling period of 13 months between the election and the coming together of the duly elected representatives of the people. It · is argued that during the 13 months the passions and prejudices stirred up by a political campaign will have become dissipated. That is ridiculous. The people should have the opportunity to · register their wishes through their representatives as soon after election as possible. They should not be compelled to wait 13 months. That is not representative government.

In no country other than ours does 13 months elapse be .. tween election and convocation of parliament. The practice in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand has been to make the interval between elections and the summoning of parliaments as short as possible. In France the Chamber of Deputies meets 10 days after election. In Nor .. way the election is in November and the meeting in January. In Sweden the election occurs in September and the lower house convenes in January.

In Germany the Reichstag assembles not later than 30 days after the election. This lapse of 30 days appears in almost all constitutions in the Republics of Europe created out of the World War. In Italy the King is authorized to prorogue the sessions and to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies any time he sees fit. In the event of a dissolution, however, the King must order new elections and convoke _ a new meeting within the space of four months. In Austria the Nationalrat must be summoned by the President to meet within 30 days after election. In Hungary the new Diet must meet six weeks after it has been elected. In Brazil the Chamber of Deputies assembles May 3-unless a sooner day is designated by law-following election, which occurs on the first Sunday in February. In Argentina the House of Deputies meets in regular session from May 1 to September 30. The election occurs on the first Sunday in March of even-numbered years.

In all the constitutions that grew out of the treaty of · Versailles the period is usually 30 days between election and convocation of parliament. It should be similar here.

Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. Will the gentleman yield?

_ Mr. CELLER. Yes.

Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. Does the gentleman favor allowing Congress to continue indefinitely in the second term?

Mr. CELLER. The Congress does not continue indefinitely. The Congress is elected for two years and the Congress continues for two years now.

Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. But there is an adjournment on March 4. What I want to bring out is whether the gentleman would favor the elimination of a definite time for adjournment in the second term?

Mr. CELLER. I am not in favor of that. I want no con .. stitutional limitation. Congress can set its own day for adjournment. The Congress would not continue in session for all of the two years. The Congress would not continue indefinitely two years. That is inconceivable. Under the present regime we do not continue indefinitely. We could go right on till next December and then on till March 4, 1933. But instead we will adjourn around June 15-the latest July 1-to enable us to attend the national convention. Does that answer the gentleman's question?

Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. That does not answer my question. I wanted to bring out whether the gentleman was in favor of having the Congress continue in session indefinitely in the second term?

Mr. CELLER. I would not favor making a definite time for adjournment and embed it in the Constitution. We can trust ourselves not to continue our labors without respite, without vacation. We :would set an appropriate date for adjournment each year. The idea of put t ing a limitat i on on any amendment that in the even-numbered year-now the year of the short session ending March 4-so that the session in that year shall not go beyond, say, May 4, seems to me repugnant · to this pending Norris amendment. In that event we would still have a so-called short session. It would extend to May 4 instead of March 4.

I herewith set forth remarks of mine in the Seventieth Congress:

The very reason that actuated the Members in the other Chamber in bringing about this Norris amendment to the Constitution was to do away with the obnoxious filibuster. But what do you do by this May 4 amendment? I say to the members of the committee that you still continue the filibuster. You had presented to you the handle of a sword that would cut out the filibuster, but you have failed to grasp it. I have as yet to hear a proper explanation as to why you have put the May 4 provision in the resolution. There is no reason why you should fix the limitation as of May 4. Why can you not leave that out and disregard it entirely as the Senate did? They set no limitation, and, you know, if you leave it at May 4 and there are men who are " filibuster minded , " as it were, when that day approaches they are going to train their guns so as to conduct a filibuster and talk against time. But if you have the right to change the date from time to time and the session draws near to the day agreed for closing and a filibuster is brewing, then you can agree to postpone for a week or two weeks or indefinitely the closing time, and York-- thus frustrate the plans of those who would filibuster.

Under the proposed amendment you are blocked. You can not agree t9 adjourn beyond May 4. That becomes the constitutional limitation of time for adjournment, just as now that limitation is March 4. Filibusters always occur just before March 4 of the even years. Under the proposal they will occur just prior to May 4. There is really no difference. If we are going to do a job, let us do the job right.

Mr. TILSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield.

Mr. TILsoN. Does the gentleman undertake to say that we are limited now as to the time of meeting and adjournment? Did not the gentlem a n hear the gentleman from Texas when he explained thoroughly how we now have absolute power under the Constitution to meet any day within the two years?

Mr. CE L LER. Yes; but because the term of office comes to an end on March 4 of the even year • . you can not go beyond that by constitutional limitation.

Mr. TILSON. Of course, we can not go beyond the period for which we are elected , but we can fix any date within that period of time under the Constitution now.

J..ir. CELLER. Yes; adjou r n any time up to March 4, but you can not now even turn back the hands of the clock after noon March 4, as was often tried.

Mr. TILsoN. Certainly not after our term of office or our commi s sion has expired.

Mr. CELLER. I say that should not occur; in other words, you can take away the May 4 limitation and you will do away with the obnoxious filibuster. There should be no short session either to Ma r ch 4 or May 4. Both sessions should be indefinite, as the long ses s ion is now. That is not provided in this resolution , and for that reason I hope an amendment will be offered to strike out that date.

Mr. LoWREY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LOWREY. I think I agree with the gentleman about removing this limitation of May 4, but that has been mentioned several times, and I believe it ought to be said that this does give at least t w o more months than we have now for the short term, and there is that much advantage over the present situation.

1\fr. CELLER. Oh, yes; indeed. There is the advantage of that small period of time over the present condition; but I say when you have at hand the means of going further, why not take advantage of such means?

Mr. Lowrey. Why not set the time for opening further back and give us longer than three months for the short session? Congress has the ri g ht to do that.

Mr. CELLER. Congress is authorized to do that, except that the sessions can not begin prior to December 1.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from New York [1\.fr. LAGUARDIA].

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague from New York will not step out just now.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I will stay.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. I was very much impressed with the confession made by my colleague from New York [Mr. O'CoNNOR], who came here in the early part of the session and announced to the whole world that he was going to be the floor leader of the Democratic Party; but the vicissitudes of his party seemed to ordain otherwise. When the gentleman from New York complains of the inactivity of Congress, and of the House in particular, permit me to remind him that he is one of the outstanding leaders of the party in control. He is an influential member of the powerful Committee on Rules, and it is within his power to bring on the floor any legislation he deems the country requires at this time. I will ask him to - bring before this House the Costigan-La Follette relief bill. Is the gentleman for that bill? I am. I will ask him to bring before this House the Wagner construction bill to provide work for the unemployed. I ask him to use his influence to bring before this House a plan for national unemployment insurance. But to date I have not seen any activity on the part of the distinguished member of the Rules Committee [Mr. O'CoNNOR] on any of these measures. Yet he talks about wasting time. I will say to the gentleman from New York that it is up to him to bring about this activity for which he has so eloquently pleaded.

In reference to the gentleman's sneering remark about the district which I represent, I am proud to represent Harlem in the House of Representatives. [Applause.] I am not ashamed of it. I would not refer to the gentleman's district by sneering at it; but I will say to the gentleman from New

Mr. GAVAGAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Yes; I will yield to my colleague from New York.

Mr. GAVAGAN. I hope the gentleman knows I represent the better part of Harlem, New York. [Laughter and applause.]

Iv"J.I. LAGUARDIA. I will say to my colleague that he, too, represents a good part of Harlem and incidentally that he is trying to add it to my district in the reapportionment. I will gladly accept it and will be proud to represent west Harlem as well as east Harlem. · [Applause.]

I am certain that the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CoNNOR] will, upon reflection, regret the offensive reference to one of the greatest living statesmen of this country. Senator GEORGE NoRRIS is the author of this resolution. Like many other reforms that he has sponsored, in this instance he has labored long and patiently but always effectively. He is often subjected to abuse and always this abuse comes from quarters who are seeking some undue advantage or some special privilege and who are opposed to the beneficial and progressive legislation which the Senator sponsors. I am proud to be of the same school of politics as the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, the author of this resolution. Nothing that has been said by his many, many enemies who do not want to see legislation to better conditions of the people, a better administration of justice, and the protection of the natural resources of the country, has injured or can injure this great man.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from New York [Mr. CELLER] said, this bill is not an unimportant, insignificant bill. Instead of making it appear, as the gentleman from New York is endeavoring to do, that it only provides for appearing here in March, we will come here in January, as my colleague from New York has said, it means that instead of convening 13 months after the election we will convene two and a half months after the election and be able to translate the wishes and the issues of the American people into legislation immediately after election. That is in keeping with true democracy. I want to warn the House to beware of amendments on this resolution. If you want to bring about a change in the Constitution and provide for the meeting of Congress immediately after election, vote down every amendment and make the passage of the resolution certain. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. POU. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the adoption of the resolution.

The previous question was ordered. ·

The resolution was agreed to.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of joint resolution (S. J. Res. 14) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States fixing the commencement of the terms of President and Vice President and Members of Congress and fixing the time of the assembling of Congress.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House :resolved itself ~to the Committee of the Whole Ho~ on the state of the Union for the _eons1d- eration of ~he JOint resolution (S. J. Res. 14) • With Mr BuLWINKLE m the chair.

The Clerk read the title o.f the joint resolution.

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the first reading of the joint resolution b~ dispensed with.

Tile CHAmMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?